Subscribe to this blog

Follow by Email

Once Again, Does Science Produce Knowledge? (Part 1)

Patrick McNamara straddles the line between science and religion. He's
a professor of neurology at Boston University as well as editor of a series of books about Where God and Science Meet. He asks:

But surely it is POSSIBLE that religion MIGHT yield some sort of worthwhile
knowledge for humankind. After all would not Coyne agree that music
yields a form of knowledge for humankind or that poetry does? What about
novels? Surely science is not the only reliable way to knowledge that
there is?1

The question was directed at Jerry Coyne, self-described stableboy to the Four Horsemen of new atheism2 and Professor in the Department of Ecology and
Evolution at the University of Chicago. Coyne was having none of it:

...music, literature and poetry don’t produce any truths about the universe that don’t require independent verification by empirical and rational investigation: that is, through science (broadly interpreted). These fine arts don’t convey to us anything factual about the world unless those facts can be replicated by reason, observation or experiment.2

I stumbled on this exchange in Joseph Hinman's upcoming book, in a passage where Hinman questions Coyne's core assertion.3 I'm going to dissect Coyne's argument further.

The first problem I'll hit in passing is a trick of language. To McNamara's question about knowledge, Coyne responds by switching terminology twice in short order: "music, literature and poetry don’t produce any truths... fine arts don’t convey to us anything factual about the world" (emphasis mine). By limiting his definition of knowledge so narrowly, he creates all sorts of problems for his own argument. For illustration, let's take the two atomic bombs that were dropped on Japan at the end of World War II. Those bombs used nuclear fission to weaponize mass-energy equivalence (Einstein's E=mc2). Mass-energy equivalence says that a small amount of matter is equal to a large amount of energy. Each atomic bomb converted part of a volleyball-sized piece of uranium into enough energy to level the core of a city. Physicist Leo Szilárd began development of the atomic bomb with research to create a nuclear chain reaction in 1934. His inspiration wasn't something he deduced from a mountain of data. His work was inspired by The World Set Free, a 1914 novel by H.G. Wells that presciently described "artificial atomic weapons" being used in a devastating world war.4

By Coyne's definition, the "truths about the universe" in The World Set Free weren't knowledge because they required independent verification. While events proved that it was possible to create and use an atomic bomb, that verification did not change reality. What was true after verification was true before it. It seems that, in some sense, H.G. Wells' novel contained a truth about the universe.

Now,
let's peel away another layer. While it's arguable that if Wells hadn't
written the novel (or Szilárd hadn't read it) that someone would have
eventually discovered the idea of nuclear chain reactions, it's
extremely unlikely the research would have begun soon enough for the
U.S. to use the atomic bomb to end World War II. In that case, World War
II and world history would have been rewritten in innumerable ways.
When the atomic bombs weren't used, the United States would have invaded
Japan with a death toll estimated by both sides in the millions.5

Are
things like the events of history and mass deaths classifiable as
knowledge?

Comments

Coyne apparently has a very, very limited view of knowledge. I agree that he intentionally changed terms to suit his definition, but knowledge is not confined in virtually anyone's universe to facts verifiable by science. Can Superman fly? Although Superman is a fictional character, the answer is clearly yes, but even though it is a fact about a fictional character that fact is a fact of the real world that science can never prove empirically. There are so many more examples that we could write all day about them. (Oh, and if you try to argue that Superman's ability to fly is not fact, that simply demonstrates your narrow view of facts.)

Patrick McNamara: But surely it is POSSIBLE that religion MIGHT yield some sort of worthwhile knowledge for humankind.

Absolutely! If God is real, then we would EXPECT that he would communicate universal truths to his followers, and that those universal truths would ALWAYS turn out to get confirmed.

However, that that is not the case, leads me to think God is not real.

Tim Wood: His inspiration wasn't something he deduced from a mountain of data. His work was inspired by The World Set Free, a 1914 novel by H.G. Wells that presciently described "artificial atomic weapons" being used in a devastating world war.

Are you actually claiming that Wells' book produced knowledge? Do you think it also produced the knowledge that Martians will attack the earth in giant tripods?

I would suggest that atomic energy only become knowledge when it was conformed by science, not when it was in a work of fiction. But perhaps you think the spells in Harry Potter are facts in some sense (as BK says above)?

Tim Wood: While events proved that it was possible to create and use an atomic bomb, that verification did not change reality.

But it did change our knowledge about reality. A stopped clock is right twice a day, but looking at the clock will not give you any knowledge about the current time. I can guess what number will be rolled on a six-sided dice. One time in six I will be right. Did I have knowledge of what would happen prior to the roll on those occasions?

The H.G. Wells novel you're referring to is called "The War of the Worlds." As I note, I was discussing was "The World Set Free." One portion of my argument is that ideas are a form of knowledge; in this case ideas that are then the direct inspiration for research to make the idea real.

Vis-a-vis verification, you're a quarter right. In the minor sense that the researchers made decisions about how they were going to proceed, verification did change reality. To give you a little ammo, opening the book to verify if schroedinger's cat is inside changes reality (the cat is now either alive or dead). Of course, you'll need a cat inside the box that isn't an observer... However, in the sense that atomic weapons are something allowed and functional under the "laws of nature," verification doesn't change a thing. Verification only verified what was already so. Your examples point to the same thing. The act of verification didn't stop the clock or change the roll of the die. Verification doesn't change reality. At best, going back to Schroedinger's fur ball, it collapses the probabilities to a definite outcome.

The ultimate version of your Superman point is probably Yes, Virgina, there is a Santa Claus. I wanted to keep my argument fairly narrow rather than debating whether there's knowledge gained in the mythological stage of development or via the suspension of disbelief.

Tim wood, no, the point I am making is actually quite different from the Virginia/Santa Claus letter. But I was intentionally vague because I will make my point later. I certainly didn't mean to distract from your point which is very different.

Tim: The H.G. Wells novel you're referring to is called "The War of the Worlds." As I note, I was discussing was "The World Set Free."

Sorry, yes, I confused the two - though the image at the top of your post IS of a Martian tripod, I think, so I may not be the only one...

But the point remains. Is the attack on Earth by Martian tripods in "The War of the Worlds" knowledge?

If so (and you seem to take that view), then all fiction is knowledge; how can we differentiate between what is true and what is not? I would say there is a qualitative, essential and all-important difference between the "knowledge" that Earth was attacked by Martian tripods and the knowledge that man landed on the Moon in 1969.

Tim: One portion of my argument is that ideas are a form of knowledge; in this case ideas that are then the direct inspiration for research to make the idea real.

I take this as confirmation that you believe all fiction is indeed knowledge.

Tim: Vis-a-vis verification, you're a quarter right. In the minor sense that the researchers made decisions about how they were going to proceed, verification did change reality. To give you a little ammo, opening the book to verify if schroedinger's cat is inside changes reality (the cat is now either alive or dead). Of course, you'll need a cat inside the box that isn't an observer... However, in the sense that atomic weapons are something allowed and functional under the "laws of nature," verification doesn't change a thing.

I thought we were talking about knowledge. Of course the laws of nature did not change. However, our knowledge of them did.

Tim: Verification only verified what was already so.

And in doing so turned the unknown into knowledge. Not the BS kind that is anything you make up, but the real kind of knowledge that we have good reason to think is actually true.

Tim: Your examples point to the same thing. The act of verification didn't stop the clock or change the roll of the die. Verification doesn't change reality.

It changes our knowledge of reality. And that is the topic of the discussion.

Pix: Absolutely! If God is real, then we would EXPECT that he would communicate universal truths to his followers, and that those universal truths would ALWAYS turn out to get confirmed.However, that that is not the case, leads me to think God is not real.

Joe: How do you know that? Put your money where your mouth is, another one of your ill considered runnings off at the mouth,

How do I know? If I look at the Bible, and find a single instance where the universal truth turned out to be wrong, then that is enough.

How about Jesus saying the generation would not pass before the apocalypse? How about every reference to the firmament, or how the world stands on pillars? How about the claim that plants existed before the Sun did?

Pix: Absolutely! If God is real, then we would EXPECT that he would communicate universal truths to his followers, and that those universal truths would ALWAYS turn out to get confirmed.However, that that is not the case, leads me to think God is not real.

Obviously he has done that. It's called morality also Judaism,Christianity, Unitarianism, humanism (read the history it began as religious thought) even Islam.

Joe: How do you know that? Put your money where your mouth is, another one of your ill considered runnings off at the mouth,

How do I know? If I look at the Bible, and find a single instance where the universal truth turned out to be wrong, then that is enough.

You have yet to show one

How about Jesus saying the generation would not pass before the apocalypse?

that is a legitimate case of the Text being emended

How about every reference to the firmament, or how the world stands on pillars? How about the claim that plants existed before the Sun did?

Man you really don't now shit do you? Ok crash course modern theology. People who believe that the Bible is 100-% true in every word are called "fundamentalists." I am not one, get it? That means we can expect mistakes especially in the OT. The whole point of it all is Jesus. You can;'t show Jesus saying that kind of stuff, Jesus get's nothing wrong,

Popular posts from this blog

We have changed the Christian History page at the CADRE site from the old design to the new one. The focus of the revamped page has expanded, with many new articles:This page provides links to websites and articles relating to Christian history, including theological development, notable figures, contributions of Christianity to society and culture, and the archaeological evidence for the facts of the Bible.We have also added four new articles by Darin Wood, PhD:John Chrysostum: His Life, Legacy, and InfluenceDr. Wood provides an informative sketch of Chrysostum's life, as well as an exploration into his writings and impact on church evangelism.The Righteousness of God in the Pauline CorpusDr. Wood examines the crucial role that righteousness plays in understanding Paul's perspectives on justification, propitiation, expiation, and covenant. The Structure of the ApocalypseDr. Wood provides an in-depth analysis of the structure (or structures) behind the Book of Revelation. C…

A visitor to the CADRE site recently sent a question about Paul's statement in Acts 20:35 which records Paul as saying, "And remember the words of the Lord Jesus, that He said, 'It is better to give than to receive'." The reader wanted to know where Jesus said this. This was my answer:

You are correct in noting that this saying of Jesus quoted by Paul is not found anywhere in the four Gospels. My own study Bible says "This is a rare instance of a saying of Jesus not found in the canonical Gospels."

Does the fact that it isn't stated in the Gospels mean that it isn't reliably from the lips of Jesus? I don't think so. The Apolstle John said at the end of his Gospel (John 21:25): "Jesus did many other things as well.If every one of them were written down, I suppose that even the whole world would not have room for the books that would be written." Obviously, this is exaggeration for the sake of making a point, but it means that Jesus di…

Stand to Reason has published a list of "talking points" that can be used as a quick reference sheet for answering questions about embryonic stem cell research and why people ought to oppose this procedure. The piece, entitled "Are you against stem cell research and cloning?" give good, concise answers to some of the questions that arise concerning why Christians would oppose this procedure when it supposedly holds such great promise.

For example, consider the following from the "talking points":

Where do we get human embryonic stem cells? We can only derive human embryonic stem cells by killing a human embryo. Removing its stem cells leaves it with no cells from which to build the organs of its body.

What is the embryo? An embryo is a living, whole, human organism (a human being) in the embryonic stage. All the embryo needs to live is a proper environment and adequate nutrition, the very same thing all infants, toddlers, adolescents, and adults need.This i…

As we approach Martin Luther King Jr. Day, I have been thinking about U2’s song Pride (In the Name of Love) (hereinafter, "Pride"). The song, of course, concerns MLKJr. (According to U2 Sermons, U2 formerly ran a video of MLKJr giving his “I have been to the mountaintop” speech during the playing of the song.) However, the lyrics of Pride are quite apparently not exclusively about MLKJr.

What is the genre of the Gospel of John and why does it matter? The latter question is easy to answer. It matters because “identification of a work’s genre helps us understand its place within the literary history . . . and aids us in its interpretation.” A.R. Cross, "Genres of the New Testament," in Dictionary of New Testament Background, eds. Craig Evans and Stanley E. Porter, page 402. When you pick up a contemporary book, you start with the knowledge that what you are reading is a romance, a science text book, a science fiction novel, a biography, or a book of history. That knowledge informs how you understand the text you are reading, such as reading how spaceship's propulsion system works in a scientific textbook or a Star Trek "technical manual". Or a scene of combat found in a historical novel or a biography of a medal of honor winner. Although these accounts may be described in similar ways, one you accept as true and the other you treat as fict…

One of the most interesting passages in Mark’s Passion Narrative, from a historiographical perspective, is Mark 15:21:

A certain man from Cyrene, Simon, the father of Alexander and Rufus, was passing by on his way in from the country and they forced him to carry the cross.First let us compare the passage to its parallels in the Gospels of Luke and Matthew (it does not appear at all in the Gospel of John).

As they led him away, they seized a man, Simon of Cyrene, who was coming from the country, and they laid the cross on him, and made him carry it behind Jesus.Luke 23:26.

As they went out, they came upon a man from Cyrene named Simon; they compelled this man to carry his cross.Matt 27:32.

Matthew and Luke retain the reference to Simon as well as describe him as being from Cyrene, but drop the reference to Cyrene being “the father of Alexander and Rufus.”

It is notable that Mark identifies Simon by name. This is rare for Mark unless the author is referring to the disciples and some famil…

The manger in which Jesus was laid has colored our imagery of Christmas. A manger, "[i]s a feeding-trough, crib, or open box in a stable designed to hold fodder for livestock.” Nelson’s Illustrated Bible Dictionary, page 674. Usually, we associate the manger with the animals in the story of Christmas or with Jesus’ perceived poverty. I have several nativity sets which include the manger, along with barn animals. Although I am a nativity set enthusiast, there is a much deeper meaning in the manger.

The manger is mentioned three times in Luke 2. Mary lays Jesus in the manger, the angels tell the shepherds that they will find the Savior by seeking the baby lying in a manger, and then the shepherds in fact find Jesus lying in a manger. Obviously, the repetitive references to the manger are indicative of its significance in Luke’s narrative. As Bible scholar N.T. Wright comments:

[I]t was the feeding-trough, appropriately enough, which was the sign to the shepherds. It told them whic…

Richard H. Casdroph collected medical evidence, x-rays, angiograms, and other data from 10 cases associated with the Kathryn Kulhman ministry. Now it will of course strike skeptics as laughable to document the miracles of a faith healer. Ordinarily I myself tend to be highly skeptical of any televangelists. I am still skeptical of Kulhman because of her highly theatrical manner. But I always had the impression that there was actual documentation of her miracles and I guess that impression was created by the Casdorph book.

The Casdroph book goes into great detail on every case. Since these were not the actual patients of Casdroph himself, there are three tiers of medical data and opinion; Casdroph himself and his evaluation of the data, several doctors with whom he consulted on every case (and they vary from case to case), and the original doctors of the patients themselves. The patient…

Since the most prolific of my blogging partners, Layman, has been tied up at work (and looks to be for some time), I thought that in light of the Christmas season, I would repost two pieces that he wrote a couple of years ago about the Census in Luke 2 because we have an number of new readers who may never have read through his thoughts on this issue from two years ago. They are republished as originally written with only my correcting some typographical errors. Enjoy.

===============

Luke, the Census, and Quirinius: A Matter of Translation

Introducing the Issue

One of the more well-known criticisms of the Gospel of Luke’s infancy narratives is that it puts the census (also called a “registration”), that caused Joseph and Mary to travel to Bethlehem, at the wrong time. Most versions translate Luke 2:1 along the lines of the New Revised Standard Version:

Luke 2:2: This was the first registration and was taken while Quirinius was governor of Syria.The problem is that the registration that oc…

In his paper "Must the Beginning of The Universe Have a Personal Cause?"[1]Wes Morriston quotes William Lane Craig making the augment that a personal origin is the only way to have an eternal cause with a temporal effect.[2] The rationale for that is merely an assertion that with an eternal cause working mechanically the effect would be eternal too,:If the cause were simply a mechanically operating set of necessary and sufficient conditions existing from eternity, then why would not the effect also exist from eternity? For example, if the cause of water's being frozen is the temperature's being below zero degrees, then if the temperature were below zero degrees from eternity, then any water present would be frozen from eternity. The only way to have an eternal cause but a temporal effect would seem to be if the cause is a personal agent who freely chooses to,create an effect in time.[3]Craig is using this argument to argue for the personal nature of God, If God was j…

Who's Visiting Now

Comments Policy

This blog is open to comments by anyone interested provided: (1) the comments are civil, (2) they are on point, and (3) they do not represent efforts by the comment authors to steer readers to long posts on other websites. Additionally, the CADRE members and management reserve the right to call an end to discussions in the comments section for any reason or for no reason. Once the CADRE member has called the conversation, all further comments are subject to immediate deletion, and the individual commenting may be asked to leave. The members of the CADRE reserve the right to delete any posts that do not adhere to these policies without any further explanation.